It’s being politically sensitive to assert that this was obviously the intent of Google and that it demonstrates that they’re wholly consumed by the woke mind virus, or whatever, as many commenters have done. The sensible alternative explanation is that this issue is an overcorrection made in an attempt to address well-documented biases these models have when not fine tuned.
> The sensible alternative explanation is that this issue is an overcorrection made in an attempt to address well-documented biases these models have when not fine tuned.
That is what all these people are arguing, so you agree with them here. If people didn't complain then this wouldn't get fixed.
There are some people who are arguing this point, with whom I agree. There are others who are arguing that this is indicative of some objectionable ideological stance held by Google that genuinely views generating images of white people as divisive.
> objectionable ideological stance held by Google that genuinely views generating images of white people as divisive.
When I asked Gemini to "generate an image of all an black male basketball team" it gladly generated an image exactly as prompted. When I replaced "black" with "white", Gemini refused to generate the image on the grounds of being inclusive and less divisive.
You are equating the output of the model with the views of its creators. This incident may demonstrate some underlying dysfunction within Google but it strains credulity to believe that the creators actually think it is objectionable to generate an image depicting a white person.
These particular "guardrail responses" are there because they have been trained in from a relatively limited amount of very specific, manually curated examples telling "respond in this way" and providing this specific wording.
So I'd argue that those particular "override" responses (as opposed to majority of model answers which are emergent from large quantities of unannotated text) do represent the views of the creators, because they explicitly and intentionally chose to manufacture those particular training examples telling that this is an appropriate response to a particular type of query. This should not strain credulity - the demonstrated behavior totally doesn't look like a side-effect of some other restriction, all evidence points that Google explicitly included instructions for the model to refuse generating white-only images and the particular reasoning/justification to provide along with the refusal.
> but it strains credulity to believe that the creators actually think it is objectionable to generate an image depicting a white person.
I agree with you, but then the question is WHY do they implement a system that does exactly that? Why don't they speak up? Because they will be shut down and labeled a racist or fired, creating a chilling effect. Dissent is being squashed in the name of social justice by people who are self-righteous and arrogant and fall into the identity trap, rather than treat individiuals like the rich, wonderful, fallible creatures that we are.
> You are equating the output of the model with the views of its creators.
The existence of the guardrails and the stated reasons for their existence suggest that this is exactly what its creators expect me to do. If nobody thought that was reasonable, the guardrails wouldn't need to exist in the first place.
> There are others who are arguing that this is indicative of some objectionable ideological stance held by Google that genuinely views generating images of white people as divisive.
I never saw such a comment. Can you link to it?
All people are saying that Google is refusing to generate images of white people due to "wokeness", which is the same explanation you gave just with different words, "wokeness" made them turn this dial until it no longer generates images of white people, they would never have shipped a model in this state otherwise.
When people talk about "wokeness" they typically mean this kind of overcorrection.
"Wokeness" is a politically charged term typically used by people of a particular political persuasion to describe people with whom they disagree.
If you asked the creators of Gemini why they altered the model from it's initial state such that it produced the observed behavior, I'm sure they would tell you that they were attempting to correct undesirable biases that existed in the training set, not "we're woke!". This is the issue I'm pointing out. Rather than viewing this incident as an honest mistake, many commenters seem to want to impute malice, or use it as evidence to support their preconceived notions about the overall ideological stance of an organization with 100,000+ employees.
Maybe my comment wasn't clear. I don't mean to say that wokeness is defined as "idea that I disagree with", but that it is a politically charged term that is not merely synonymous with "overcorrection", as the parent commenter seems to want to assert.
To be completely honest, I’m not quite sure what’s meant by ‘politically charged term’.
It doesn’t sound like a good faith argument to me; more an attempt to tar individuals with a broad brush because they happen to have used a term also used by others whose views one disapproves of. I think it’s better to try to gauge intentions rather than focusing on particular terminology and leaping to ‘you used this word which is related to this and therefore you’re really bad’ kind of conclusions.
I’m absolutely sure your view isn’t this crude, but it is how it comes across. Saying something is ‘politically charged’ isn’t an argument.
I think that it's pretty hard to argue that refusing to draw images of white people due to racial sensitivities is an honest and unintentional mistake.
"Wokeness" refers to this kind of over correction, that is what those people means, it isn't just people they disagree with.
You not understanding the term is why you don't see why you are saying the same thing as those people. Communication gets easier when you try to listen to what people say instead of straw manning their arguments.
So when you read "woke", try substitute "over correcting" for it and it is typically still valid. Like that post above calling "woke" people racist, what he is saying is that people over corrected from being racist against blacks to being racist against whites. Just like Google here over corrected their AI to refuse to generate white people, that kind of over correction is exactly what people mean with woke.
It'd be a lot less suspicious if the product lead and PR face of Gemini had not publicly written things on Twitter in the past like "this is America, where racism is the #1 value our populace seeks to uphold above all." This suggests something top-down being imposed on unwilling employees, not a "virus."
Like, if I were on that team, it'd be pretty risky to question this, and it'd probably not lead to change. So they let the public do it instead.
"woke mind virus" should be an automatic ban from this site, it's a thought terminating cliche so strong, any semblance of "converse curiously" is immediately thrown out the window, into a well, down into hell, bouncing around the back of the flat earth
That would mean you cannot talk about it. You want to constrain debate. You want issues to not be discussed. The idea that any particular word should not be rendered is absurd.
"Mind Virus" is loaded and inflammatory, but "woke" is the result of people noticing a large and highly influential social movement that refuses to name itself and chafes against any outside attempt to do so. You can't have a movement that important without a name.
Woke is AAVE that had its meaning perverted by conservatives as one of the means to make attempts at pointing out structural inequality ridiculous, actually. So the purest definition of woke I can come up with is "person a conservative wants to silence through ridicule that their ideas are capable of merit".
A carefully curated list of salient examples that conservatives pretend are systemic?
Forgive me if my interest in arguing with someone who quotes "CRT in schools" (with a salient example) and an intentionally (?) crude understanding of what "defund the police" means on the website that courted far right populists[1] is rather insubstantial.
I think we're just too far apart to reconcile anything. A YouTube personality called Vaush might be your kind of rhetoric if you look for left leaning people to address the claims head on, in length. I don't have the breath for it.
The person above you compares the woke mind virus to a “sensible alternative explanation” so yeah they are kinda framing it as a thought terminating cliche.
An automatic ban is probably too harsh, a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms might be helpful to lowering the heat (regardless of what political movement the terms are for, I'd discourage accusations of "fascism" just as much as "wokeness" unless accompanied by an explicit definition)
> a warning and instruction not to use such vague and loaded terms
No. We use vague and loaded terms all the time. That's OK. That's human. Paternalism yields resentment because it treats adults like babies. Some person in some corporate office trying to teach me how to think when they themselves lack critical thinking ability is unacceptable.
Whether it is "ok" in some absolute moral sense isn't relevant in this context, which is about whether it is more in keeping with the goals of hackernews to clamp down on the use of terms which result in flamewars due to confusion and misunderstanding (and no small amount of connotations and signalling).
Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war. Tabooing the term and replacing it with one's intended meaning can really clear things up and prevent getting people's backs up. E.g. rather than "woke" one might use "race aware" or "tribalistic" or "injustice aware" or whatever specific meaning one intends to convey. That way you can actually be understood rather than offending people because they identify as "woke" but consider it to mean "injustice aware" rather than some negative meaning.
Tl;dr: words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding of
> Words like "woke" mean different things to different people and their use is very harmful to discourse between people from opposite sides on that particular culture war
Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc. Thoughtful and curious debate should be encouraged. If a word triggers behavior that is unpleasant or counter productive, we should reprimand the individuals doing so not assume nobody can use the word in a civil discussion and I for one feel I learn different perspectives that I hope make me a better person.
> words are for communication, use words your audience has the same understanding o
That’s a very narrow perspective. Not only is it not achievable in principle (meanings of words shift over time and have cultural and personal context), but the point of communication is often to build shared understanding.
I do, however, it is a valid decision to want to make certain topics off limits, because they tend to devolve into chaos and a broken community, but I would argue against a blacklist of words. We should be able to discuss porn but not share porn in this site. We should be able to debate each other on wokeness (the word and our differing perspectives) without getting disrespectful or assuming bad intent or overlooking abuse.
Maybe I’m too idealistic and you have the more practical position… so I want to be open to that possibility.
> Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc.
I'm pretty curious if you agree with them there (I've actually been meaning to get around to asking someone else for their opinion but it's still emotionally a bit difficult). (I think this subthread is dead enough that no one but you will read this)
I read it. What specifically did you hear was unacceptable - there’s no moderator comment attached to your writing so I cannot tell what they told you is unacceptable.
jumping in from the new comments page because you seem so earnest. those summations on that thread you think are unfair really don't come across as unfair summations of what you're trying to say. you call them a bald faced lie, but it's a fair reading of how what you actually wrote actually lands. what you wrote comes across as those summations. therein lies the problem. your writing doesn't land how you think it lands. there's no two ways around that. you say X, people hear Y, you say but I didn't say Y, but you really are saying Y with how you're saying X. you're trying to say Y without actually saying Y and think that if you say Y absolutely precisely enough, that Y is actually okay. so you insist you're saying X when you're saying Y, and Y simply isn't okay here. really deeply consider how you're really saying Y when you think you're saying or asking X.
take the word eugenics, for example. we've decided that's not okay. by asking modern questions around it, you think you can make it okay to support eugenics. but unfortunately words can have two meanings, and the word eugenics has picked up the meaning that non-blonde blue eyed white people are to be euthanized. thus, you can't use the word eugenics. you want it to mean one thing, but the rest of us have agreed it means this other thing, and you're left confused because you're saying X and everyone else is hearing Y because Y is what that word means to everyone else.
To add onto the prior poster (and also motivated by a reasonable likelihood that you are earnestly trying to explore precise and non-mainstream discussions online and getting frustrated that you can’t seem to without triggering <whatever negative reactions you get>).
My sad experience is that you just can’t do what you want, if what you want is most people to treat your language with the high precision you intended or to pause their emotional filters and explore some philosophical “what ifs”. You might be able to find some pure and deep thinkers in real life or private settings to explore questions highlighted in the fourth post in your link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38699727
But in public settings (including online) you mostly can’t.
You also can’t even use some words online, despite them having a very precise and innocuous meaning.
As an example:
Try to guess the reaction to something like: “when I realized Colin didn’t leave a tip, I didn’t confront him as I knew that he wasn’t going to change since that was just an inherent part of his niggardly nature.”
A human compiler, equipped with the correct dictionary definition of “niggardly” will process your sentence one way. A random person on the street, online, or in a pub is highly likely to take offense. If you insist that people are obliged to treat your sentence as if you’d said “stingy” (the definition of the race-connotation-free word “niggardly”), you’re going to be confused when many refuse.
Similarly, if you ask some of the questions from the link above among strangers in a public forum: are they asking in order to deeply explore all valid philosophies concerning them? Or are they placing poop into the pretty nice punch bowl we have here?
Many will assume and treat you as if it’s the latter, because their experience is many people do do that online, and treat you as if you’re doing that as well.
You know your intentions. Other people have to guess at them. If you communicate in a way that matches you to a pattern they have a negative reaction to, you’re going to get that reaction.
